The first question pertains to disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction on salary paid to doctors, staff and depreciation for car, furniture, etc. in the determination of professional income of the assessee. The assessee’s grievance is that the Tribunal rejected the claim for the reason that the claim was made for the first time before the Tribunal and the assessee never raised the issue in assessment before the officer or in first appeal before the first appellate authority.
Supreme Court inter alia on prerequisites for conversion of a private company into a public company – It is not the records of the Registrar of Companies which determines the status of a company but the definition of a “private company” or “public company” as defined in section 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(iv) of the Companies Act, 1956; having regard to the definition
what needs to be done by an assessing authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in examining the claim of an assessee that the payment made by such assessee was a deductible expenditure under $.37 of the Income-tax Act although called a penalty is to see whether the law or scheme under which the amount was paid required such payment to be made as penalty or as something akin to penalty,
In a nut-shell, it is held that the instance case is one of rendering multi-farious services for production of films by foreign companies in India and handing over the negatives to them in India. This does not involve export or transfer outside India by any means of any film software by the assessee.
Regarding the addition made u/s 41(1), we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly invoked this provision. There is neither any remission nor cessation of the liability. The Assessing Officer has simply added all the credits appearing in the balance sheet which could not be hit by Section 41(1).
We have the rival submissions and perused the records. During the year under consideration the assessee society had claimed as exempt a sum or Rs. 10.00 Lakhs received on account of damages for wrongful proceedings against the society taken up before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society. Mr. Manojkumar Goswami & Mrs. Shashi Goswami
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view , the reasons advanced by the learned CIT for refusing to grant continuation of recognition u/s 80G(5) are superfluous and do not stand to legal scrutiny within the meaning of section 80G(5).
So far as addition u/s 40A(3) is concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessee has purchased raw hides/skins for the purposes of manufacturing leather and leather products from local producers either directly or through their agents. Even though the Assessing Officer issued letters to various producers and some of these have come back unserved but it does not prove that the producers of the skin from whom assessee had made purchases are non-existent.
The revision u/s. 263 is not like the reopening of the assessment where once the assessment is reopened entire assessment is open before the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered in accordance with law. In the revision proceedings, the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show cause notice.
The provisions of the section contemplate to rectify any mistake apparent from record and non-consideration of any argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment and the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497,502 (Bom).
